Maligned Rangertell Examiner: Field Testing

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Steve in MS

Micro gold is not a good starting place to determine if the Ranger can actually find gold.

Absolutely correct, Steve. Unless extensive "comparison" testing is done to ascertain the exact amount of micro gold found WITH and WITHOUT using the RT Examiner, a test in known gold-producing areas would be completely null and void. (useless and proving nothing)

[Dell Winders]

Absolutely correct, Steve. Unless extensive "comparison" testing is done to ascertain the exact amount of micro gold found WITH and WITHOUT using the RT Examiner, a test in known gold-producing areas would be completely null and void. (useless and proving nothing)

Another reason why the Carl Morland, $25,000 publicity gimmick is an intentional deception, and useless except for his own self promotion. and gratification. Scientifically, it proves absolutely nothing except it's ability to garner the support of a few educated idiots who like to hide behind aliases and pretend they are Scientist. Dell

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Another reason why the Carl Morland, $25,000 publicity gimmick is an intentional deception... ??? Dell

Guess I don't follow your logic, Dell. Perhaps there isn't any logic to follow; rather just random words strung together to form more useless rhetoric.

One thing for sure is that any test designed by Carl will be according to DB protocol and as such would eliminate (to a strong degree) Chance Results from scoring a successful outcome.

Hmmmm... come to think about it, I suppose that would seem unfair to you and your do-nothing dowsing contraptions.

To win the prize, you and your gadgets would actually have to perform the "stated" or "implied" function/claim. I can see where you'd have a problem with that constraint.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Another reason why the Carl Morland, $25,000 publicity gimmick is an intentional deception, and useless except for his own self promotion. and gratification. Scientifically, it proves absolutely nothing except it's ability to garner the support of a few educated idiots who like to hide behind aliases and pretend they are Scientist. Dell

We should put this quote in the Hall of Fame. It's a real gem from the mighty Dell-uded Winders.

[Steve in MS]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Another reason why the Carl Morland, $25,000 publicity gimmick is an intentional deception, and useless except for his own self promotion. and gratification. Scientifically, it proves absolutely nothing except it's ability to garner the support of a few educated idiots who like to hide behind aliases and pretend they are Scientist. Dell

Dell, this thread was about the Ranger, there was no need for you to come to the defense of the Ranger, after all, that is your competition.
Wouldn't it be in your favor for the Ranger to be proven to be useless?
About Carl, I bet he would be glad to set-up a fair test, not only for your products but for the Ranger.
It would be hard for me to believe that Carl intentionally wants to destroy the LRL business.....
All we are looking for is evidence that LRLs work.......so far it is sort of like looking for sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster or UFOs.

[hipopp]

folks...a large group of scientists were asked a bunch of hypothetical questions about "WHAT IF"? yup what if...what if this what if that...and they conscientiously submitted their reports to the inquirer who vetted the reports...threw out the ones that did not comply with his desired outcomes...then he put these now biased reports into a book form selling millions and up to this time the main proponent, the drug pusher if you like, is making millions out of Consultancy. The original scientists refuted their own outcomes because they are taken right out of context but they could not get their own work back from the tricksters. The consultant is Al Gore and the perpetrated fraud is Climate Change. The world is deluding itself. As a consequence of this world wide fraud believed by all and sundry I no longer Trust anyone but myself. My evaluation of the RT Examiner will be done honestly and conscientiously and my methodology will be fair and"correct" ....I can either find gold with it or it is all in the mind. If it is all in the mind then I will study this "mind" phenomena to locate further gold without the RT Ex. Fair enough??? And yes I will share all my findings on this site.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hipopp

folks...a large group of scientists were asked a bunch of hypothetical questions about "WHAT IF"? yup what if...what if this what if that...and they conscientiously submitted their reports to the inquirer who vetted the reports...threw out the ones that did not comply with his desired outcomes...then he put these now biased reports into a book form selling millions and up to this time the main proponent, the drug pusher if you like, is making millions out of Consultancy. The original scientists refuted their own outcomes because they are taken right out of context but they could not get their own work back from the tricksters. The consultant is Al Gore and the perpetrated fraud is Climate Change. The world is deluding itself. As a consequence of this world wide fraud believed by all and sundry I no longer Trust anyone but myself. My evaluation of the RT Examiner will be done honestly and conscientiously and my methodology will be fair and"correct" ....I can either find gold with it or it is all in the mind. If it is all in the mind then I will study this "mind" phenomena to locate further gold without the RT Ex. Fair enough??? And yes I will share all my findings on this site.

Hi hipopp,

OK - I understand what you're saying with regard to only trusting your own judgment. With that idea in mind, you must then remove the only other thing that could bias the results ... you. And the only way to achieve this is by using a double-blind test procedure. You may think you can avoid self-deception by simply being aware that it exists, but you would be wrong. Human beings have a huge capacity for unconsciously deceiving themselves. We will be looking for objective and not subjective results.

We await your findings...

[hung]

Another reason why the Carl Morland, $25,000 publicity gimmick is an intentional deception, and useless except for his own self promotion. and gratification. Scientifically, it proves absolutely nothing except it's ability to garner the support of a few educated idiots who like to hide behind aliases and pretend they are Scientist. Dell

Dell, your words have never been so true. Don't be intimidated by these people.

Steve in MS said:

All we are looking for is evidence that LRLs work.......so far it is sort of like looking for sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster or UFOs

Don't be that stupid as the all the other 'skepthics' here. You don't need this forum for anything. You will never find your answers here.
Just pick your choice of LRL and buy one.
Or are you that poor?
You will discover if it works for you or not.

If you don't do that, you are just fooling yourself and acting stupid as them.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

Just pick your choice of LRL and buy one.
Or are you that poor?
You will discover if it works for you or not.

If you don't do that, you are just fooling yourself and acting stupid as them.

You should be in marketing ... NOT!!

"Don't worry about whether it actually works or not, just buy it! If you have to ask the price, then you can't afford it."

Yes - you would need to be stupid to fall for that one.
Try getting your money back afterwards, when you find out it was all a scam.

[Steve in MS]

Originally Posted by hung

Don't be that stupid as the all the other 'skepthics' here. You don't need this forum for anything. You will never find your answers here.
Just pick your choice of LRL and buy one.
Or are you that poor?
You will discover if it works for you or not.

If you don't do that, you are just fooling yourself and acting stupid as them.

Hung, I buy items that have a purpose and work for the intended purpose.
I can't think of anyone on the U.S. detector forums that use both conventional detectors and LRLs.
That leaves a wide gap as far as LRLs are concerned, one tends to seek out information before purchase that the product is capable of the task at hand.
Placing all skeptics into one lump isn't helpful for getting your point across as they (we) all have different backgrounds.
Now if someone wants to send me an LRL free of charge to test(without obligation), I would be glad to do that.
A better idea is since you have deep pockets, come to the US with your LRLs and put on a demonstration on how useful they are.
Wouldn't you like to show Carl and skeptics are wrong about LRLs?
Somewhere through all the haze, I have read different sources that LRL's don't work for everyone.......
Hmmm.....maybe that is a red flag.